The Trump Presidency 15

[Regnad Kcin]

I'd have some sympathy for that position if it weren't for the fact that:

1. Senators have a 6-year term, staggered in 1/3s. That means 2/3rds of them won't have to face the wrath of the electorate any time soon, and by that time, we'll (hopefully) have moved on from the Trump era
2. Incumbents are re-elected a ridiculously high percentage of the time, even if they're complete ********.
3. While such an action might alienate some people, right now, it would draw in more voters that it repels. Take a look at how many Democrats miss John McCain now, after having opposed him when he ran for President.

Comparing this to someone pointing a gun at your head is a ridiculous analogy.

Particularly when we have recent examples of people actually tackling actual gunmen to compare it to.

Except, I imagine there’s no shortage of death threats against anyone in power (and their family members) who dares to betray Trump.

 

[dudalb]

Trump rallies are fast turning into...well...rallies.

Of the Nuremberg variety.

 

[dudalb]

Yes, against the wringing of hands it looks like democracy is going gentle into that good night.

And what do you propose be done about?

 

[dudalb]

Because people can be dreadful, stupid, and dreadfully stupid. Citation: human history.

This.
I find it amazing that otherwise intelligent people have a pretty nieve idea of Human Nature.
I am not religious believer, but I think the idea of Original Sin has some validity, if it means that man seems to be fundemtnatly flawed.

 

[Stacyhs]

The first 5 minutes of every hour of news should be fact-checking this turd. They should be willing to point out when his facts are correct, but every lie needs to be called out repeatedly between now and next November.

If every lie needs to be called out between now and next November, they'd need more than 5 minutes of every hour of news to do it.

 

[Hellbound]

This.
I find it amazing that otherwise intelligent people have a pretty nieve idea of Human Nature.
I am not religious believer, but I think the idea of Original Sin has some validity, if it means that man seems to be fundemtnatly flawed human.

FTFY

Humans are both sinners and saints, both as groups and as individuals, as much as people might want to deny one or the other of those

 

[Ladewig]

The first 5 minutes of every hour of news should be fact-checking this turd. They should be willing to point out when his facts are correct, but every lie needs to be called out repeatedly between now and next November.

Why?

It is easy for people who frequent a skeptic board to say “if these people just knew the truth then they would abandon President Trump.” But, as was said upthread, the problem is not lack of facts, the problem is a lack of desire to know facts, or at least to know uncomfortable facts......

I think they believe and follow Trump for the same reason they believe crisis actor and 9/11 truth nonsense. Lack of critical thinking and a mind closed to sources that don't say what they want to hear.

Plus, President Trump learned early on that he could speak in favor of opposing positions and a very large percentage of the population would not say, “well, look at the two-bit conman acting like we are rubes,” but rather, “he said the words I want to hear; he’s on my side.” After that he realized that he could make the phrase “fake news” far more popular than the phrase “fact checking.” And he learned that if he were called out on it, he could just throw out school-yard taunts and insults.

The man is not well. There is something very wrong in his head.

 

[dudalb]

FTFY

Humans are both sinners and saints, both as groups and as individuals, as much as people might want to deny one or the other of those

Which is why I am not a big fan of "Humanism"The real thing, not the bogeyman which the Christian Fundies have created.)
It has way too rosy a view of human nature.

 

[dudalb]

And I think we will be seeing, in a couple of years, how many on people are wiling to put their butts on the line to fight a fascist regime, and how many are just loudmouths who bitch and moan and yell, but are afraid to actually act.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If democrats want to break republicans away from Trump, they may need to provide a better incentive than this...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...76/donald-trump-ilhan-omar-white-collar-crime

“We’re not going to let Donald Trump dismantle the Bill of Rights,” Mick Mulvaney, a far-right House member from South Carolina told Alberta in 2016. “For five and half years, every time we got to the floor and try to push back against an overreaching president, we get accused of being partisan at best and racist at worst. When we do it against a Republican president, maybe people will see it was a principled objection in the first place.”

Today, Mulvaney is White House chief of staff, and people can clearly see that there never was a principled objection at all.

But what many people miss about this turnaround is it’s not a case of Trump over-awing or hypnotizing once-skeptical Republicans. What changed is that conservative movement leaders used to be afraid that Trump would be disloyal to their priorities.

They feared, in short, that his rhetorical gestures of economic populism — he promised a higher minimum wage, a big infrastructure bill, a universal health care plan, and even higher taxes on the rich — would be real. It turns out, however, that Trump was just lying about almost all of that stuff.

In exchange for deciding that he doesn’t care whether or not Trump shreds the bill of rights, Mulvaney now, according to an excellent team of Washington Post reporters, “has built what one senior administration official called ‘his own fiefdom’ centered on pushing conservative policies — while mostly steering clear of the Trump-related pitfalls that tripped up his predecessors by employing a ‘Let Trump be Trump’ ethos.”

Here is your competition

That massive haul of financial cash comes in part from people who backed Trump in 2016. But it also features big bundles of cash from donors who supported other GOP candidates in the 2016 primary and then stayed aloof from Trump. It includes people like Stephen Rosenberg, CEO of the real estate investment partnership Greystone. Rosenberg backed Hillary Clinton in 2016, but wrote a $360,600 check to the Trump reelection campaign — and I’m guessing it’s not because he appreciates the way Trump drives liberal elites crazy with his blunt talk.

 

[Babbylonian]

Why?

It is easy for people who frequent a skeptic board to say “if these people just knew the truth then they would abandon President Trump.” But, as was said upthread, the problem is not lack of facts, the problem is a lack of desire to know facts, or at least to know uncomfortable facts......

Two main reasons:
1. Being called a liar multiple time every day will drive Trump into saying even worse things. I'm still optimistic enough to believe there are a significant number of Trump supporters who have limits.
2. Treating him like any other president (with at least surface respect "for the office") has done nothing.

Also, btw, how about not replying to me with made-up quotes?

 

[Segnosaur]

The first 5 minutes of every hour of news should be fact-checking this turd. They should be willing to point out when his facts are correct, but every lie needs to be called out repeatedly between now and next November.

Why?

Why not? Trump is the president. He is making statements that are false. Such things are newsworthy and people should be aware of such issues.

It is easy for people who frequent a skeptic board to say “if these people just knew the truth then they would abandon President Trump.” But, as was said upthread, the problem is not lack of facts, the problem is a lack of desire to know facts, or at least to know uncomfortable facts......

True, people may not always be receptive to learning uncomfortable facts (or may stick to sources that confirm their views). But I think the hope is that at least some potential Trump voters may stumble onto a mainstream site, see some actual fact checking that they weren't expecting, and change their opinions accordingly.

Especially if such fact-checking is done in an easily digestible format... flashy graphics, actual video from Trump when possible, etc. (Make it easier to access than burying it within some news story.)

Granted, Trump may still get his 40-45% approval ratings from the hardcore base, but losing a few voters here and there might reduce the chance of re-election in 2020. (Given his margin of victory in 2016, he needs every vote he can get.)

Remember back in the 2016 election, the "commander in chief" debates where Matt Lauer interviewed both Trump and Clinton. Trump claimed (wrongly) that he was always against the Iraq war, and that falsehood has taken root among many of his followers... if Lauer had properly challenged him at the time, pointed out that he actually supported the invasion at one point, maybe he might have lost a few voters.

 

[dudalb]

I think a lot of the news networks are finally relizing the Frankenstein monster they created back in 2015 with their massive coverage of Trump, giving him much more coverage then the other GOP Candidates because they thought Trump Meant Ratings.
The head of CNN actualy said as much when he was criticized for the massive coverage Trump was getting on CNN.

 

[Paul2]

Which is why I am not a big fan of "Humanism"The real thing, not the bogeyman which the Christian Fundies have created.)
It has way too rosy a view of human nature.

One can imagine a version of humanism that acknowledges that evolution has instilled in us both selfish and altruistic tendencies, although the altruistic ones are often limited by application only to those within some defined in-group (or tribe). On the other hand, Michael Shermer (The Moral Arc) and Steven Pinker (Enlightenment Now) make the case that things - broadly speaking - are getting better, both materialistically and morally.

 

[Segnosaur]

I think a lot of the news networks are finally relizing the Frankenstein monster they created back in 2015 with their massive coverage of Trump, giving him much more coverage then the other GOP Candidates because they thought Trump Meant Ratings.
The head of CNN actualy said as much when he was criticized for the massive coverage Trump was getting on CNN.

Who can forget the day that several cable news channels decided to broadcast an empty podium (where Trump was scheduled to give a speech) instead of a Clinton speech where she was laying out some policies.

 

[pgwenthold]

Why?

It is easy for people who frequent a skeptic board to say “if these people just knew the truth then they would abandon President Trump.” But, as was said upthread, the problem is not lack of facts, the problem is a lack of desire to know facts, or at least to know uncomfortable facts......

Maybe they are just deplorable people?

Hilary told us that 3 years ago. People whined about it. The only way she was wrong was in the extent of deplorables are among his supporters.

I don't know, maybe then it was only half. Certainly not half any more. Anyone who still supports him goes to that basket.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

Today, on behalf of the American people, I received an American flag that flew aboard a ship carrying the first waves of U.S. Service Members to land in Normandy...

 

[Andy_Ross]

Did his hands burn?

 

[Resume]

Trump Tweets

Today, on behalf of the American people, I received an American flag that flew aboard a ship carrying the first waves of U.S. Service Members to land in Normandy...

Why does this cynical draft-dodger deserve this privilege?

 

[Aridas]

While such an action might alienate some people, right now, it would draw in more voters that it repels. Take a look at how many Democrats miss John McCain now, after having opposed him when he ran for President.

I'm not certain about the validity of the logic here, given the current situation.

For reference, though, I, as an arbitrary Democrat, was never fundamentally opposed to McCain. I respected him during his Presidential Run, though I pointedly preferred his opponent. Had he become President fairly, I wouldn't have been particularly unhappy about him as a person, but expect that I would have opposed a number of the things that he pushed because of the things themselves, though I also expect that the things pushed would have had room for compromise to something that may have been at least barely palatable.

Justin Amash was (and fairly certainly still is) a Tea Party person. The one notable positive to him to Democrats is that he's willing to actually stand against the numerous and egregious violations of the law that Trump's committed. Just about any viable Democratic challenger could easily match that and greatly surpass Amash in desirability, assuming that he survives the primary challenge among a group that includes far too much blind loyalty to Trump. So... politically speaking, it's not especially likely to pay off with much in the way of more voters total, even if it would likely attract a few independents - if he survived the primary.